FireChan Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 One of those consequences is facing the very difficult choice whether or not to abort. As far as uneducated people getting pregnant by accident, sure, that's logical. But don't act like educated people can't have the same sort of accident. **** happens. I'm genuinely confused by your jump in logic. Could you expand on this? Chef's post was a joke. To the bolded, I never implied that. And now, when you ask, "Do you think people considering, and going through with abortions, don't consider carrying pregnancy's to term and giving children up for adoptions," the answer is yes. Because they are uneducated or stupid. I don't expect them to consider much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 snip It's also wrong. "Life begins at conception because of cell theory" is demonstrable bull ****. For example: an ovum is "life" by the definition of "cell theory." But an ovum, by definition, only exists before conception. So either your reliance on "cell theory" to define life is not just wrong, but asinine. Every point I made "conflating" things since - HeLa cells, for example - demonstrated the fundamental fallacy of your own definition. (And as an aside, I'll mention the fundamental fallacy of "unique DNA" - are identical twins not alive because they share the same chromosomes? Ridiculous assertion.) Life begins at the cellular level, it is the basic unit of life. If something is a cell, it is alive. I don't understand what is wrong about that. A HeLa cell, ovum, and zygote are all living. And while it is an imperfect definition (especially regarding viruses), it does apply to most of the life in the world. To your aside, I had noted the unique DNA dilemma with identical twins. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "with DNA formed through sexual reproduction." Although, the clones.... And then you demonstrate it again, by referencing "sentience vs. lump." HeLa cells aren't sentient, no...but then, neither is a zygote. Of course, that's splitting verbal hairs - the discussion hasn't been about sentience, but the potential for sentience. "Sentience" isn't even your measure of "life" in this context, "potential" is - your argument being that "potential is what defines when life begins." Same problem - show me where an unfertilized ovum has any less potential than a fertilized one. The sentient vs. lump phrase was intended to summarize their potential, I was just writing shorthand. However, sentience comes after life. Where sentience begins or occurs has nothing to do with where life begins. And to your problem, an unfertilized ovum has to be fertilized (not great odds there) then go through the entire implantation and pregnancy process, whereas a fertilized egg has already gotten past that first step. If I start at the 50 yard line and you start at the opposing endzone, who has more potential to get to the 49 yard line? And before you dismiss that on the grounds that an unfertilized ovum isn't a human life because it can't grow and differentiate into biological structures on its own (which, by the way, is a much better definition of "when life begins" than anything the rest of you have brought up), remember that more than a few religions view an unfertilized ovum as just that. It's the basis by which traditional Catholic doctrine is against birth control, as interfering with the potential for human life. I thought that was implied. And I don't care what those religions say. That is a better definition though. And thus, via the negative enchelus and not "conflation," the holes are poked. Not because you're wrong, but because you haven't and can't offer a definitive definition for "when life begins." (Hell, since specificity seems to be an issue - see "cell theory" - let's be specific and say "when human life begiNons.") You can opine many things - fertilization, "cell theory" (but not for haploids...or undifferentiated human cells, or non-unique DNA patterns, or cells lacking "potential"), but you can't actually prove any of them, can you? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'm genuinely confused by your jump in logic. Could you expand on this? If you go to his restaurant, he is the host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorguy Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 It's also wrong. "Life begins at conception because of cell theory" is demonstrable bull ****. For example: an ovum is "life" by the definition of "cell theory." But an ovum, by definition, only exists before conception. So either your reliance on "cell theory" to define life is not just wrong, but asinine. Every point I made "conflating" things since - HeLa cells, for example - demonstrated the fundamental fallacy of your own definition. (And as an aside, I'll mention the fundamental fallacy of "unique DNA" - are identical twins not alive because they share the same chromosomes? Ridiculous assertion.) Life begins at the cellular level, it is the basic unit of life. If something is a cell, it is alive. I don't understand what is wrong about that. A HeLa cell, ovum, and zygote are all living. And while it is an imperfect definition (especially regarding viruses), it does apply to most of the life in the world. To your aside, I had noted the unique DNA dilemma with identical twins. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "with DNA formed through sexual reproduction." Although, the clones.... And then you demonstrate it again, by referencing "sentience vs. lump." HeLa cells aren't sentient, no...but then, neither is a zygote. Of course, that's splitting verbal hairs - the discussion hasn't been about sentience, but the potential for sentience. "Sentience" isn't even your measure of "life" in this context, "potential" is - your argument being that "potential is what defines when life begins." Same problem - show me where an unfertilized ovum has any less potential than a fertilized one. The sentient vs. lump phrase was intended to summarize their potential, I was just writing shorthand. However, sentience comes after life. Where sentience begins or occurs has nothing to do with where life begins. And to your problem, an unfertilized ovum has to be fertilized (not great odds there) then go through the entire implantation and pregnancy process, whereas a fertilized egg has already gotten past that first step. If I start at the 50 yard line and you start at the opposing endzone, who has more potential to get to the 49 yard line? And before you dismiss that on the grounds that an unfertilized ovum isn't a human life because it can't grow and differentiate into biological structures on its own (which, by the way, is a much better definition of "when life begins" than anything the rest of you have brought up), remember that more than a few religions view an unfertilized ovum as just that. It's the basis by which traditional Catholic doctrine is against birth control, as interfering with the potential for human life. I thought that was implied. And I don't care what those religions say. That is a better definition though. And thus, via the negative enchelus and not "conflation," the holes are poked. Not because you're wrong, but because you haven't and can't offer a definitive definition for "when life begins." (Hell, since specificity seems to be an issue - see "cell theory" - let's be specific and say "when human life begiNons.") You can opine many things - fertilization, "cell theory" (but not for haploids...or undifferentiated human cells, or non-unique DNA patterns, or cells lacking "potential"), but you can't actually prove any of them, can you? No. Thanks for this post.....very informative, yet I find it did not change my stance. I do appreciate your time, and effort Sir. While I do have an opinion, it is not my opinion that really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I thought that was implied. And I don't care what those religions say. That is a better definition though. Well, I thought human life was implied in the question "When does life begin?" But we seem to keep circling this argument back and forth between the pure scientific definition of "life" and any hypothetical definition of "human life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Well, I thought human life was implied in the question "When does life begin?" But we seem to keep circling this argument back and forth between the pure scientific definition of "life" and any hypothetical definition of "human life." It's basically the same thing you said above. We can opine what makes us human or unique, compared to other life, but we can't prove it. That doesn't stop the zygote, ovum, or HeLa cell from being "living," but the distinction between which one of those is a human life is subjective. But it's the zygote. Final answer. If you took no action against it (also barring unforeseen complications), it would become a human child. Like Tasker said above, would you be tried for murder/manslaughter if you caused a 3 month pregnant woman to lose her child? At the very least, that situation raises a perceived contradiction in the law. Edited April 22, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If you go to his restaurant, he is the host. I was taking the topic too seriously, and the joke went straight over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Do you happen to know how much those statistics are skewed by those that just give to charities simply for tax breaks? Are you implying that some people are so greedy that they give to charities in order to get a tax break, so that they end up having more money in their pockets? I don't believe that anyone would do such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 My view on this issue has certainly evolved, specially after the birth of my daughter. My own personal litmus view of the matter is once it has a heart beat, then that's the cutoff. It would be murder at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I'm pro-choice. Until a fetus is viable outside of the body, then it's the host's choice what to do with it. So to be clear...you support a mother who chooses to terminate a pregnancy right up to the moment before it is born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 So to be clear...you support a mother who chooses to terminate a pregnancy right up to the moment before it is born? The more laughable part is that he uses the word "host" which implies a parasitic relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The more laughable part is that he uses the word "host" which implies a parasitic relationship. Well, technically it could be considered commensalism, but I'm sure most would say it's a mutualistic relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well, technically it could be considered commensalism, but I'm sure most would say it's a mutualistic relationship. A biological parasitic relationship requires different species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) How about human life begins as the inverse of when it ceases to exist (ie death)? If a person has no brain waves but still has a heartbeat etc., the medical community determines that person to be no longer alive and can be unplugged. Couldn't the inverse be true? If a fetus has brain waves, it's alive and can't be unplugged. Edited April 22, 2015 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A biological parasitic relationship requires different species. A commensalistic relationship does not. Just two organisms. Which is in admission in itself that the fetus is a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 One of those consequences is facing the very difficult choice whether or not to abort. As far as uneducated people getting pregnant by accident, sure, that's logical. But don't act like educated people can't have the same sort of accident. **** happens. I'm genuinely confused by your jump in logic. Could you expand on this? Restaurant...host.....get it? If you go to his restaurant, he is the host. Sorry I missed this. I was taking the topic too seriously, and the joke went straight over my head. You must be pretty short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 So to be clear...you support a mother who chooses to terminate a pregnancy right up to the moment before it is born? I'm sticking with "and beyond," myself. Quite a few 12 year old boys, for example, make me question why God invented 12 year old boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 I'm sticking with "and beyond," myself. Quite a few 12 year old boys, for example, make me question why God invented 12 year old boys. Were you not a 12 year old boy? Or do you agree that you yourself were a terrible preteen boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Life begins at the first cheesy pick up line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A biological parasitic relationship requires different species.You are too literal sometimes. I've known humans I've considered social parasites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts